http://vancouverpeak.com/
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:25:20 +0000MyBBhttp://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5338
Sun, 02 Aug 2015 10:56:51 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5338roepen Measure the thicker of the room from this divider and divide the distance from the width of the planks. This will likely tell you what the width from the final row of planks should be. All layered flooring will expand along with contract due to temperature as well as humidity fluctuations. To allow for this expansion, place 3/8-inch oral spacers along the wall to depart a consistent gap around the is bordered by of the floor.

If you don’t decide to take on a project like this often and don’t care to get a jamb saw, you can rent one at your local Home Depot Tool Local rental Center. Overlaps in the underlayment result in protrusions under the flooring. Duct taping the seam will keep the underlayment in place and help conserve the vapor barrier. Once the laminate has been mounted, remove the spacers, install a coordinating threshold and install complementing quarter-round moulding to the wall surfaces using finishing nails.

Lay each and every row beginning with the remnant pieces longer than just one foot from the row ahead of, until the room is complete.]]>roepen Measure the thicker of the room from this divider and divide the distance from the width of the planks. This will likely tell you what the width from the final row of planks should be. All layered flooring will expand along with contract due to temperature as well as humidity fluctuations. To allow for this expansion, place 3/8-inch oral spacers along the wall to depart a consistent gap around the is bordered by of the floor.

If you don’t decide to take on a project like this often and don’t care to get a jamb saw, you can rent one at your local Home Depot Tool Local rental Center. Overlaps in the underlayment result in protrusions under the flooring. Duct taping the seam will keep the underlayment in place and help conserve the vapor barrier. Once the laminate has been mounted, remove the spacers, install a coordinating threshold and install complementing quarter-round moulding to the wall surfaces using finishing nails.

Lay each and every row beginning with the remnant pieces longer than just one foot from the row ahead of, until the room is complete.]]>http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5329
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:44:31 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5329
There's a lively debate on foreign ownership in the media, but the inevitable "nobody knows" acts as a giant reset button on policy change. "We shouldn't act until we have data" is a compelling line that excuses inaction. Regardless of whether foreign ownership turns out to be a big factor, this is a bad thing.

There have been loud public calls for data collection since at least 2011 and it doesn't appear that anything compelling has been done to collect it. Future calls for data (e.g. the upcoming "Give Us The Data") will carry more weight if we can show that these calls have gone unanswered for years.

Please help me in collecting historical examples of the following...

Media stories discussing the lack of data or unsatisfied requests for data

Quote:While reporting this story, the usual suspects failed to provide any hard numbers on foreign ownership in Vancouver’s real estate market—the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver all told OpenFile they don’t collect any statistics on foreign ownership. However, some data on the issue does exist, and it's buried in individual property assessment notices BC Assessment sends out to property owners...

Quote:I'm not saying foreign capital isn't flowing into Vancouver. Hell, given the economic rise of Asia and the lengths to which politicians of all stripes go to sell Vancouver as a Pacific Rim city, I'd be surprised if it wasn't, but until you show me hard data that shows it's a problem, I say it's too soon to call for policy changes (but as long as we're throwing them out there willy nilly, how about a temporary tax on developer profits to fund a Real Estate Commission of Inquiry?)

Quote:“It’s really hard to capture how much is investment activity in housing versus owner-occupied,” she says she told the Finance Minister. “And in particular, if you want to add and overlay that with foreign investor activity in real estate, that’s even more of a black box. We really don’t have a good sense about how much of the Canadian real estate market is being propped up by foreign investors and the risk that that represents in terms of the overall housing market.”

It’s an issue that Ottawa has been aware of for some time. During a discussion with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board in April of 2012, Mr. Flaherty acknowledged that the government doesn’t have a good grasp on the amount of foreign money in the domestic housing market.

“It’s mainly anecdotal, so I don’t have a statistical grasp of it, no,” he said at the time, adding that he had been hearing anecdotally that a large number of people in emerging economies were paying cash for condos in Toronto or Vancouver.

Quote:The president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. acknowledges there may be a “data gap” when it comes to the degree of foreign ownership in the marketplace, as debate swirls over whether overseas buyers are inflating house prices in markets like Vancouver and Toronto.
Tracking foreign buyers in Canada’s housing boom: Can we do it? Should we even care?

A third of people buying homes in Canada may be foreigners, says one real estate company. A leading economist says the number isn’t even 5%. The country’s housing agency says it has no idea what the actual number is.

]]>
There's a lively debate on foreign ownership in the media, but the inevitable "nobody knows" acts as a giant reset button on policy change. "We shouldn't act until we have data" is a compelling line that excuses inaction. Regardless of whether foreign ownership turns out to be a big factor, this is a bad thing.

There have been loud public calls for data collection since at least 2011 and it doesn't appear that anything compelling has been done to collect it. Future calls for data (e.g. the upcoming "Give Us The Data") will carry more weight if we can show that these calls have gone unanswered for years.

Please help me in collecting historical examples of the following...

Media stories discussing the lack of data or unsatisfied requests for data

Quote:While reporting this story, the usual suspects failed to provide any hard numbers on foreign ownership in Vancouver’s real estate market—the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver all told OpenFile they don’t collect any statistics on foreign ownership. However, some data on the issue does exist, and it's buried in individual property assessment notices BC Assessment sends out to property owners...

Quote:I'm not saying foreign capital isn't flowing into Vancouver. Hell, given the economic rise of Asia and the lengths to which politicians of all stripes go to sell Vancouver as a Pacific Rim city, I'd be surprised if it wasn't, but until you show me hard data that shows it's a problem, I say it's too soon to call for policy changes (but as long as we're throwing them out there willy nilly, how about a temporary tax on developer profits to fund a Real Estate Commission of Inquiry?)

Quote:“It’s really hard to capture how much is investment activity in housing versus owner-occupied,” she says she told the Finance Minister. “And in particular, if you want to add and overlay that with foreign investor activity in real estate, that’s even more of a black box. We really don’t have a good sense about how much of the Canadian real estate market is being propped up by foreign investors and the risk that that represents in terms of the overall housing market.”

It’s an issue that Ottawa has been aware of for some time. During a discussion with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board in April of 2012, Mr. Flaherty acknowledged that the government doesn’t have a good grasp on the amount of foreign money in the domestic housing market.

“It’s mainly anecdotal, so I don’t have a statistical grasp of it, no,” he said at the time, adding that he had been hearing anecdotally that a large number of people in emerging economies were paying cash for condos in Toronto or Vancouver.

Quote:The president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. acknowledges there may be a “data gap” when it comes to the degree of foreign ownership in the marketplace, as debate swirls over whether overseas buyers are inflating house prices in markets like Vancouver and Toronto.
Tracking foreign buyers in Canada’s housing boom: Can we do it? Should we even care?

A third of people buying homes in Canada may be foreigners, says one real estate company. A leading economist says the number isn’t even 5%. The country’s housing agency says it has no idea what the actual number is.

]]>http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5317
Sun, 10 May 2015 12:38:19 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5317
Between January 1999 (oldest data available from the REBGV website) and January 2015 the MLS HPI for an apartment property in Vancouver increased by $232,060 or 254%, while the CPI increased by 31.9%. Wow! However, that increase came more in the earlier years than more recently.

For example, comparing the increase between 2005 and 2015 yields an increase of $144,277 or 160% while the CPI increased 18.1%.

Between 2010 and 2015 the HPI actually decreased by $2,687 or a 1% decline while the CPI increased by 9.1%

Since the method of calculating the HPI changed in early 2012, my last calculation is the increase between 2012 and 2015. For that period, the MLS HPI for an apartment property increased by $11,300 or 1.03% while the CPI increased by 4.4%

So, what can we glean from this? It seems that like so many things, if you got in early you made a bundle. If you got in after it became apparent that people were making a bundle you made a lot. If you got in when it was clear that everyone was making money, you made none. So there you go. Let us see what 2015 holds and I will revisit this post in early February 2016.

For example, comparing the increase between 2005 and 2015 yields an increase of $144,277 or 160% while the CPI increased 18.1%.

Between 2010 and 2015 the HPI actually decreased by $2,687 or a 1% decline while the CPI increased by 9.1%

Since the method of calculating the HPI changed in early 2012, my last calculation is the increase between 2012 and 2015. For that period, the MLS HPI for an apartment property increased by $11,300 or 1.03% while the CPI increased by 4.4%

So, what can we glean from this? It seems that like so many things, if you got in early you made a bundle. If you got in after it became apparent that people were making a bundle you made a lot. If you got in when it was clear that everyone was making money, you made none. So there you go. Let us see what 2015 holds and I will revisit this post in early February 2016.

Macdonald Realty produces these ‘Market Hot Sheets’ once a month covering all the REBGV market areas and posts them to their blog. You can access the Bowen Island/Gulf Island Hot Sheets via the ‘Vancouver, North Shore and Tri-Cities Real Estate Markets’ post (after clicking on post title, scroll down and look for the links under ‘Surrounding Areas’).

I have one caveat concerning the data – the sales total may include vacant land sales. I query this based on year-end data released separately by Macdonald Realty and by Dee Fraser back in December. Also, under the table’s Market Status area, ‘Listings’ represents ‘Total Active Listings’ and you will notice the figure in the ‘Inventory’ column is different - I am not sure what is included in its figures.

I am not going to comment further because I am not studying this market. My hope is the VanPeak board member JimmyWW who is keeping a close eye on BI will share his insights with us all.

Here is the REBGV Benchmark data for Bowen Island. We’re seeing it slowly rise which I believe is attributed to the ‘value’ of the homes purchased – new built vs old, features (granite counters, wood trims, etc) and so on. Again, JimmyWW might be able to elaborate on this.

I have included ‘Gulf Islands’ in the thread title; although I have no intention of creating a table from the Macdonald Realty ‘Market Hot Sheet’; If anyone else would like to take that on, please do. Rather if anyone has any comments to offer about the Gulf Islands real estate market, then feel free to post here in this thread.

Macdonald Realty produces these ‘Market Hot Sheets’ once a month covering all the REBGV market areas and posts them to their blog. You can access the Bowen Island/Gulf Island Hot Sheets via the ‘Vancouver, North Shore and Tri-Cities Real Estate Markets’ post (after clicking on post title, scroll down and look for the links under ‘Surrounding Areas’).

I have one caveat concerning the data – the sales total may include vacant land sales. I query this based on year-end data released separately by Macdonald Realty and by Dee Fraser back in December. Also, under the table’s Market Status area, ‘Listings’ represents ‘Total Active Listings’ and you will notice the figure in the ‘Inventory’ column is different - I am not sure what is included in its figures.

I am not going to comment further because I am not studying this market. My hope is the VanPeak board member JimmyWW who is keeping a close eye on BI will share his insights with us all.

Here is the REBGV Benchmark data for Bowen Island. We’re seeing it slowly rise which I believe is attributed to the ‘value’ of the homes purchased – new built vs old, features (granite counters, wood trims, etc) and so on. Again, JimmyWW might be able to elaborate on this.

I have included ‘Gulf Islands’ in the thread title; although I have no intention of creating a table from the Macdonald Realty ‘Market Hot Sheet’; If anyone else would like to take that on, please do. Rather if anyone has any comments to offer about the Gulf Islands real estate market, then feel free to post here in this thread.

The one sale in January was up in Pender Harbour - a 1,400sf 3bed, 1bath waterfront home on 10 acres purchased for $2,500,000.

This leaves the two sales in March. One involved a 3,900sf 4bed, 2½ bath home on a 0.8 acre Sechelt waterfront property with a selling price of $1,160,000. The other sale occurred outside Gibsons up above the Langdale ferry terminal: a 10 year old 22,319sf 12bed/7bath “chateau” on 54 acres going for $6,600,000. Yes, it did go through numerous price drops over the last few years.

As of today, there are 95 "$million+" properties listed. The month began with 84.

The one sale in January was up in Pender Harbour - a 1,400sf 3bed, 1bath waterfront home on 10 acres purchased for $2,500,000.

This leaves the two sales in March. One involved a 3,900sf 4bed, 2½ bath home on a 0.8 acre Sechelt waterfront property with a selling price of $1,160,000. The other sale occurred outside Gibsons up above the Langdale ferry terminal: a 10 year old 22,319sf 12bed/7bath “chateau” on 54 acres going for $6,600,000. Yes, it did go through numerous price drops over the last few years.

As of today, there are 95 "$million+" properties listed. The month began with 84.

Quote:The interesting note is land sales are up by 77% over the next highest sales volume in 4 years. Good bare land sales are important. They mean jobs, home construction, with multiplying opportunities for employment; in short it represents economic growth.

I think MacKenzie might be jumping the gun here. These sales do not involve large development size holding. In January, the largest lot sold was 7.5 acres in Halfmoon Bay with 2 parcels each around 4.5 acres selling in Gibsons. In February, a 4.8 acre piece moved in Roberts Creek. In March, the largest holding was 3 acres up in Pender Harbour followed by a 2.7 acre lot in Gibsons. (Note: we're talking real estate market areas). At today’s prices, perhaps some of these parcels have been bought for investment purposes to be sold or subdivided at a later date; but, maybe MacKenzie does know what has motivated the buyers.

However, to equate economic growth with these 26 land sales – hmmm, I think that’s a stretch.

Quote:The interesting note is land sales are up by 77% over the next highest sales volume in 4 years. Good bare land sales are important. They mean jobs, home construction, with multiplying opportunities for employment; in short it represents economic growth.

I think MacKenzie might be jumping the gun here. These sales do not involve large development size holding. In January, the largest lot sold was 7.5 acres in Halfmoon Bay with 2 parcels each around 4.5 acres selling in Gibsons. In February, a 4.8 acre piece moved in Roberts Creek. In March, the largest holding was 3 acres up in Pender Harbour followed by a 2.7 acre lot in Gibsons. (Note: we're talking real estate market areas). At today’s prices, perhaps some of these parcels have been bought for investment purposes to be sold or subdivided at a later date; but, maybe MacKenzie does know what has motivated the buyers.

However, to equate economic growth with these 26 land sales – hmmm, I think that’s a stretch.

Quote:2015 is all about taking advantage of the great deals on the Sunshine Coast and the great rates.The Robinson Group, January 22, 2015

Okay, that was a pretty, piddling pearl, but I cracked open a lot of shells...how’s this one:

Quote:The numbers are looking fabulous for this spring so far. New listings are continuing to roll in and the number of price changes is remaining steady.Joni&Gail, April 2, 2015

Meh, still not so pearlish? What about this one:

Quote:Welcome to 2015! We started the year on the right foot with increased sales for both detached homes and rural land for sale. The recent drop in the overnight lending rate to 0.75% along with a low exchange on the Canadian loonie we have continued increase in sales on the Sunshine Coast. Russ & Ria Qureshi and Terry Murphy, February 3, 2015

Yes! There’s a little meat with the potatoes: bank rate and value of the dollar equated to sales on the SC. It’s a start.

Okay, well, there weren’t as many pearls out there as I thought. But...I have saved the best for the last. From the one who has been ringing the clarion month after month, year after year in the Coast Reporter Real Estate Weekly, we are gently guided from the microeconomic to the macroeconomic, from the local to the national in this unprecedented transition. The social insights and economic predictions – all are gladly given so we need not fear the future.

Quote:In active listings we are seeing a steady decline over previous years. This is likely a sign that we are heading for a more balanced market. The interesting note is land sales are up by 77% over the next highest sales volume in 4 years. Good bare land sales are important. They mean jobs, home construction, with multiplying opportunities for employment; in short it represents economic growth. With the falling oil prices, the Bank of Canada will respond and has responded with monetary loosening i.e.: the drop in interest rate. Watch over the next few months because I believe the Federal Government will be very careful to keep our economy rolling by providing stimulus.

Also, the market will continue to be well served by the baby boomers who are following through on their dreams of moving to the Sunshine Coast. I personally believe we are moving into an up-cycle and this will bring a greater movement of people to the Coast. Everyone desires to live in paradise.Kenan MacKenzie, Real Estate Reflections, April 3, 2015

Aw, paradise...but, if paradise exists before everyone lives in it what happens if everyone arrives? Will it still be paradise, Kenan? Won’t we then have to start looking for a new paradise...and then another new paradise and then another and another. Wait, that’s it isn’t it? That is the new economy...man’s constant and never ending search for paradise on earth and the money dished out to get there again and again and again...

Well, then let’s get this new seven year cycle started...

******************************

I hope to make the first stats post tomorrow. In the meantime, I encourage you to read Garth Turner’s latest blog post ‘Undeniable’ at The Greater Fool. It’s about numbers...sales stats numbers...and how they’re reported.

I read Garth Turner (former Tory MP who people either love or hate) because first off he amuses me – he’s actually a very funny man. Second, he often says something to make me pause and think while I keep in mind his current profession and his background.

SC-REsales2014vs2013.png (Size: 14.52 KB / Downloads: 1239)
]]>
So, here...here is what the vanguard sees...here is what the vanguard writes...and we...we humbly gather together their pearls...

Quote:2015 is all about taking advantage of the great deals on the Sunshine Coast and the great rates.The Robinson Group, January 22, 2015

Okay, that was a pretty, piddling pearl, but I cracked open a lot of shells...how’s this one:

Quote:The numbers are looking fabulous for this spring so far. New listings are continuing to roll in and the number of price changes is remaining steady.Joni&Gail, April 2, 2015

Meh, still not so pearlish? What about this one:

Quote:Welcome to 2015! We started the year on the right foot with increased sales for both detached homes and rural land for sale. The recent drop in the overnight lending rate to 0.75% along with a low exchange on the Canadian loonie we have continued increase in sales on the Sunshine Coast. Russ & Ria Qureshi and Terry Murphy, February 3, 2015

Yes! There’s a little meat with the potatoes: bank rate and value of the dollar equated to sales on the SC. It’s a start.

Okay, well, there weren’t as many pearls out there as I thought. But...I have saved the best for the last. From the one who has been ringing the clarion month after month, year after year in the Coast Reporter Real Estate Weekly, we are gently guided from the microeconomic to the macroeconomic, from the local to the national in this unprecedented transition. The social insights and economic predictions – all are gladly given so we need not fear the future.

Quote:In active listings we are seeing a steady decline over previous years. This is likely a sign that we are heading for a more balanced market. The interesting note is land sales are up by 77% over the next highest sales volume in 4 years. Good bare land sales are important. They mean jobs, home construction, with multiplying opportunities for employment; in short it represents economic growth. With the falling oil prices, the Bank of Canada will respond and has responded with monetary loosening i.e.: the drop in interest rate. Watch over the next few months because I believe the Federal Government will be very careful to keep our economy rolling by providing stimulus.

Also, the market will continue to be well served by the baby boomers who are following through on their dreams of moving to the Sunshine Coast. I personally believe we are moving into an up-cycle and this will bring a greater movement of people to the Coast. Everyone desires to live in paradise.Kenan MacKenzie, Real Estate Reflections, April 3, 2015

Aw, paradise...but, if paradise exists before everyone lives in it what happens if everyone arrives? Will it still be paradise, Kenan? Won’t we then have to start looking for a new paradise...and then another new paradise and then another and another. Wait, that’s it isn’t it? That is the new economy...man’s constant and never ending search for paradise on earth and the money dished out to get there again and again and again...

Well, then let’s get this new seven year cycle started...

******************************

I hope to make the first stats post tomorrow. In the meantime, I encourage you to read Garth Turner’s latest blog post ‘Undeniable’ at The Greater Fool. It’s about numbers...sales stats numbers...and how they’re reported.

I read Garth Turner (former Tory MP who people either love or hate) because first off he amuses me – he’s actually a very funny man. Second, he often says something to make me pause and think while I keep in mind his current profession and his background.

SC-REsales2014vs2013.png (Size: 14.52 KB / Downloads: 1239)
]]>http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5310
Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:23:02 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5310
My final dream match: Winnipeg vs Ottawa - just for the sheer fun it. The best part - the majority of team owners would be apoplectic

Rogers might be ecstatic given how much they've likely lost already this year in this new deal of theirs. My question is will bars and pubs be able to show play off games? Will they have to pay extra somehow to Rogers. I wonder what the deal is there?

What's your final dream match-up?

What do you think - will the playoffs impact interest rates? Will they impact the price of oil? Will they impact SDH prices in Vancouver or Toronto? I figured it was my duty to connect to real estate and/or the economy somehow.

Hope those who love hockey enjoy every minute of the games ]]>
My final dream match: Winnipeg vs Ottawa - just for the sheer fun it. The best part - the majority of team owners would be apoplectic

Rogers might be ecstatic given how much they've likely lost already this year in this new deal of theirs. My question is will bars and pubs be able to show play off games? Will they have to pay extra somehow to Rogers. I wonder what the deal is there?

What's your final dream match-up?

What do you think - will the playoffs impact interest rates? Will they impact the price of oil? Will they impact SDH prices in Vancouver or Toronto? I figured it was my duty to connect to real estate and/or the economy somehow.

Hope those who love hockey enjoy every minute of the games ]]>http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5307
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:24:43 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5307
I understand that this forum is dedicated to discussion of the residential real estate market in Vancouver and environs. However, I just can’t get it out of my head that in some way, the prosperity of Canada in general and Alberta and British Columbia in particular, including BC’s huge residential real estate industry, has to be affected by the price of a barrel of oil.

So, when I read that a barrel of crude is now selling for between $50 - $60, I wonder how that will affect Canada’s (read Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s) production and sales of crude. According to Reuters on 8 April 2015, Brent May crude finished the day at $55.55 a barrel with U.S. May crude at $50.42.

To get the discussion started, I’ll provide some comments about the economic viability of extracting oil from the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Please provide your thoughts and information below!

Some background on the tar sands oil:

“Refiners don’t particularly want tar sands oil, which is tougher to make into usable transportation fuel, so it sells for about $20 to $30 less per barrel than crude from Texas or the Dakotas. Therefore, if producers can’t make it on the cheap, they can’t afford to make it at all. Still, tar sands used to look like a decent investment. Energy producers can calculate, almost down to the barrel, how much oil can be extracted from a tar sands plot. Companies that could afford the steep upfront costs expected steady, if small, returns for decades. In June 2013 the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecasted a doubling of the country’s daily crude oil production to 6.7 million barrels by 2030. But things aren’t looking so rosy these days. CAPP’s 2014 report cut the production forecast by 300,000 barrels per day.

“Tar sands extraction is a marginal business in the best of conditions. As the financial risks stack up, companies are reconsidering throwing millions of dollars at these projects. ”

What changed? Extracting and processing tar sands has always been a tough business. Bitumen, the fuel component, is nearly solid underground. Producers have to heat up prodigious amounts of water to melt the stuff and get it to flow toward the surface. Surface-level deposits are less technically challenging to access but no greener. These projects look very much like strip mines and have some of the same environmental impacts, which include diverting and polluting rivers and streams, causing heavy erosion, and disturbing vast areas of soil. The ponds of leftover toxic waste threaten millions of migrating birds, and studies have identified health problems in the nearby indigenous communities linked to pollution.

Extracting the bitumen also demands large investments in machinery; the heavy, sticky crude requires large processing facilities to prepare it for transport. In order to make the tar sands bitumen marketable, producers have to heat the thick sludge to 500 degrees, which requires plenty more energy. All things considered, the energy you can get from burning a barrel of tar sands oil only barely exceeds the energy required to produce it. And it doesn’t help that most of the stuff is buried in Alberta's remote northeast. To call the area God’s country requires the iffy assumption that God remembers where he put it. Getting equipment and people to the tar sands region costs loads of money.

But the even bigger challenge is getting the oil to refineries. Tar sands producers would love to send their oil to the upper Midwest, but those refineries are already saturated with domestic crude. They have no use for the cheap stuff from Alberta. That means the tar sands oil has to travel all the way to the Gulf of Mexico—more than twice the distance. There are two primary methods to move oil: by pipeline, which is cheap, and by rail, which is expensive. That cost differential is make-or-break for a tar sands business. The break-even price of tar sands oil is around $100 per barrel if transported by rail, according to Anthony Swift, a staff attorney at NRDC (which publishes Earthwire). Tar sands oil sells for $75 on a good day. So producers have to find a savings of $25 per barrel somewhere in order to make it worth the investment.

That’s why they have been so desperate for the Keystone XL pipeline, and why, in the pipeline’s absence, the narrow margins necessary to make tar sands extraction economical dissolve. Moving oil from Alberta to the Gulf by pipeline would cost around $9 per barrel, or one-third the cost of rail transport. With a stroke of his pen, the president could almost (almost) make tar sands into a worthwhile economic proposition for investors. (Though, in the words of climatologist James Hansen, that proposition would be “game over for the climate,” which isn’t exactly a good deal for the rest of us.) And if the pipeline isn’t get approved? Well, to put it in the simplest terms possible: No KXL, no new tar sands projects.

And guess what? The Keystone XL is dead, for now. Will Keystone be resuscitated? If it is, it won’t be anytime soon. On 25 February 2015, President Obama vetoed legislation that would have allowed the pipeline, but, according to Climate Progress Keystone is not dead. All the veto means is that Congress isn’t able to force the pipeline’s construction through legislation. The process is just going back to being centered on the State Department’s administrative review procedure, as it largely has been for the last six years.

After it’s finished reviewing the pros and cons of Keystone XL, the State Department will ultimately make a recommendation to Secretary of State John Kerry on whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. Kerry will then make the official determination, which will likely sway the President’s final decision.

For now, there’s no telling when that will happen. As Neela Banerjee reported for InsideClimate News, Kerry has no deadline to make his decision on whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. But while everyone waits for that to happen, there are at least three things in the works that could heavily influence the future of the pipeline.

The fight over property rights in Nebraska:

If you’ve been following the Keystone XL process closely, then you’re familiar with the fact that Nebraska has been a key battleground for the project. That’s because of challenges to the pipeline’s proposed route through the state, specifically from landowners who don’t want the pipeline running through their properties. TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build Keystone, has filed for eminent domain on those properties. The latest development is that in early February 2015, a Nebraska district judge said TransCanada cannot yet use eminent domain, placing a temporary injunction on land seizure. That injunction will remain in place until Nebraska’s Supreme Court takes up the landowners’ case against state law LB1161, which effectively gave TransCanada the right to seize land under eminent domain in the first place. The landowners are arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Until this case is decided, there is no final pipeline route through Nebraska. So in terms of Keystone’s future, this is a pretty important case to watch.

Low oil prices increasing Keystone’s climate impact

President Obama said he would only approve Keystone XL if it didn’t significantly increase carbon emissions. For many, this has been a signal that he might approve the pipeline, given the State Department’s assessment that the project would have little impact on climate change. Now, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is calling on the State Department to “revisit” that determination, and that’s because of oil prices. Oil prices have been relatively low for nearly a year. With little indication that they’re going to rise much in the near future, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently said Keystone XL could be more important for the future of tar sands development, and therefore the climate. Tar sands oil produces as much as three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventionally produced oil, but the State Department said that Keystone XL would not impact the climate because that oil would inevitably be developed, pipeline or not. But now, with such low oil prices, it’s becoming less and less profitable to extract tar sands, and some companies are even pausing their planned development. So, the EPA says Keystone might be a project that will accelerate the carbon-intensive tar sands process, and therefore have a greater impact on the climate.

A fueled debate over exports

One of the arguments President Obama used against the pipeline was that it would not do anything to improve U.S. energy security. “Understand what this project is,” Obama said at a 14 November 2014 press conference. “It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.” It is true that Canadian crude, unlike most U.S.-produced oil, can be sent overseas. And, as CNN Money noted in a 2013 report, exports from the United States will likely rise because of the Keystone XL pipeline. There’s been a fierce debate over how much of that oil would stay in the U.S. and how much would be exported. And that debate is only going to heat up now that a new study, released in late February 2015 by the analysis firm IHS Inc., said that the majority of it would stay in the country. Specifically, the study said that 70 percent of the Canadian heavy oil would stay in the country after being refined, while the remaining would likely be exported. If true, that’s a burn for pipeline opponents who argue that most of the oil would be shipped oversees and wouldn’t contribute to U.S. energy security. But 30 percent of 830,000 barrels per day is not a small amount of oil to be exported, so it’s unlikely opponents will totally lay off the point that much of Keystone’s oil is for other countries. Indeed, the Senate rejected an amendment to the Keystone XL bill that would have required all the pipeline’s oil stay in the United States. The refineries that do process Keystone’s tar sands oil in the United States will also produce large amounts of petcoke - the black, dusty byproduct of tar sands oil refining - which will also likely be exported. Petcoke is coal-like and can be burned as a fuel in power plants, but is too dirty to be burned in America. Petcoke was the second-most exported product from the United States last year.

So, it has become a truism across Alberta as the seven-year (and counting!) wait for a Keystone pipeline continues.

In 2014 both Shell and France’s Total SA halted tar sands projects, saying they weren’t economically viable. Also, Suncor Energy of Canada and Total killed joint plans to build a massive bitumen upgrading plant in Alberta. “Market conditions have changed significantly,” Suncor's CEO said. The cancellation cost the companies more than $1.5 billion. And yes, the delays in building Keystone XL are playing a major role. When Statoil announced its postponed project, the company cited “limited pipeline access” as a factor.

“Tar sands extraction is a marginal business in the best of conditions,” says Swift. “As the financial risks stack up, companies are reconsidering throwing millions and millions of dollars at these projects." That’s good news for the environment. According to DeSmogBlog, the emissions difference between burning oil from conventional wells and tar sands is about the same as trading in your Honda Accord for a Chevy Suburban.

That would be a bad deal, but not quite as bad a deal as investing in tar sands. As long as the price of crude remains at $50 - $60 a barrel and the Keystone XL pipeline stays on the drawing board, much of that cheap and dirty crude will remain in the ground, right where Nature left it.

And where does that leave us with Vancouver real estate? Affected by the price of oil? Not affected by the price of oil? Who cares?!?]]>
I understand that this forum is dedicated to discussion of the residential real estate market in Vancouver and environs. However, I just can’t get it out of my head that in some way, the prosperity of Canada in general and Alberta and British Columbia in particular, including BC’s huge residential real estate industry, has to be affected by the price of a barrel of oil.

So, when I read that a barrel of crude is now selling for between $50 - $60, I wonder how that will affect Canada’s (read Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s) production and sales of crude. According to Reuters on 8 April 2015, Brent May crude finished the day at $55.55 a barrel with U.S. May crude at $50.42.

To get the discussion started, I’ll provide some comments about the economic viability of extracting oil from the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Please provide your thoughts and information below!

Some background on the tar sands oil:

“Refiners don’t particularly want tar sands oil, which is tougher to make into usable transportation fuel, so it sells for about $20 to $30 less per barrel than crude from Texas or the Dakotas. Therefore, if producers can’t make it on the cheap, they can’t afford to make it at all. Still, tar sands used to look like a decent investment. Energy producers can calculate, almost down to the barrel, how much oil can be extracted from a tar sands plot. Companies that could afford the steep upfront costs expected steady, if small, returns for decades. In June 2013 the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecasted a doubling of the country’s daily crude oil production to 6.7 million barrels by 2030. But things aren’t looking so rosy these days. CAPP’s 2014 report cut the production forecast by 300,000 barrels per day.

“Tar sands extraction is a marginal business in the best of conditions. As the financial risks stack up, companies are reconsidering throwing millions of dollars at these projects. ”

What changed? Extracting and processing tar sands has always been a tough business. Bitumen, the fuel component, is nearly solid underground. Producers have to heat up prodigious amounts of water to melt the stuff and get it to flow toward the surface. Surface-level deposits are less technically challenging to access but no greener. These projects look very much like strip mines and have some of the same environmental impacts, which include diverting and polluting rivers and streams, causing heavy erosion, and disturbing vast areas of soil. The ponds of leftover toxic waste threaten millions of migrating birds, and studies have identified health problems in the nearby indigenous communities linked to pollution.

Extracting the bitumen also demands large investments in machinery; the heavy, sticky crude requires large processing facilities to prepare it for transport. In order to make the tar sands bitumen marketable, producers have to heat the thick sludge to 500 degrees, which requires plenty more energy. All things considered, the energy you can get from burning a barrel of tar sands oil only barely exceeds the energy required to produce it. And it doesn’t help that most of the stuff is buried in Alberta's remote northeast. To call the area God’s country requires the iffy assumption that God remembers where he put it. Getting equipment and people to the tar sands region costs loads of money.

But the even bigger challenge is getting the oil to refineries. Tar sands producers would love to send their oil to the upper Midwest, but those refineries are already saturated with domestic crude. They have no use for the cheap stuff from Alberta. That means the tar sands oil has to travel all the way to the Gulf of Mexico—more than twice the distance. There are two primary methods to move oil: by pipeline, which is cheap, and by rail, which is expensive. That cost differential is make-or-break for a tar sands business. The break-even price of tar sands oil is around $100 per barrel if transported by rail, according to Anthony Swift, a staff attorney at NRDC (which publishes Earthwire). Tar sands oil sells for $75 on a good day. So producers have to find a savings of $25 per barrel somewhere in order to make it worth the investment.

That’s why they have been so desperate for the Keystone XL pipeline, and why, in the pipeline’s absence, the narrow margins necessary to make tar sands extraction economical dissolve. Moving oil from Alberta to the Gulf by pipeline would cost around $9 per barrel, or one-third the cost of rail transport. With a stroke of his pen, the president could almost (almost) make tar sands into a worthwhile economic proposition for investors. (Though, in the words of climatologist James Hansen, that proposition would be “game over for the climate,” which isn’t exactly a good deal for the rest of us.) And if the pipeline isn’t get approved? Well, to put it in the simplest terms possible: No KXL, no new tar sands projects.

And guess what? The Keystone XL is dead, for now. Will Keystone be resuscitated? If it is, it won’t be anytime soon. On 25 February 2015, President Obama vetoed legislation that would have allowed the pipeline, but, according to Climate Progress Keystone is not dead. All the veto means is that Congress isn’t able to force the pipeline’s construction through legislation. The process is just going back to being centered on the State Department’s administrative review procedure, as it largely has been for the last six years.

After it’s finished reviewing the pros and cons of Keystone XL, the State Department will ultimately make a recommendation to Secretary of State John Kerry on whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. Kerry will then make the official determination, which will likely sway the President’s final decision.

For now, there’s no telling when that will happen. As Neela Banerjee reported for InsideClimate News, Kerry has no deadline to make his decision on whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. But while everyone waits for that to happen, there are at least three things in the works that could heavily influence the future of the pipeline.

The fight over property rights in Nebraska:

If you’ve been following the Keystone XL process closely, then you’re familiar with the fact that Nebraska has been a key battleground for the project. That’s because of challenges to the pipeline’s proposed route through the state, specifically from landowners who don’t want the pipeline running through their properties. TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build Keystone, has filed for eminent domain on those properties. The latest development is that in early February 2015, a Nebraska district judge said TransCanada cannot yet use eminent domain, placing a temporary injunction on land seizure. That injunction will remain in place until Nebraska’s Supreme Court takes up the landowners’ case against state law LB1161, which effectively gave TransCanada the right to seize land under eminent domain in the first place. The landowners are arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Until this case is decided, there is no final pipeline route through Nebraska. So in terms of Keystone’s future, this is a pretty important case to watch.

Low oil prices increasing Keystone’s climate impact

President Obama said he would only approve Keystone XL if it didn’t significantly increase carbon emissions. For many, this has been a signal that he might approve the pipeline, given the State Department’s assessment that the project would have little impact on climate change. Now, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is calling on the State Department to “revisit” that determination, and that’s because of oil prices. Oil prices have been relatively low for nearly a year. With little indication that they’re going to rise much in the near future, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently said Keystone XL could be more important for the future of tar sands development, and therefore the climate. Tar sands oil produces as much as three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventionally produced oil, but the State Department said that Keystone XL would not impact the climate because that oil would inevitably be developed, pipeline or not. But now, with such low oil prices, it’s becoming less and less profitable to extract tar sands, and some companies are even pausing their planned development. So, the EPA says Keystone might be a project that will accelerate the carbon-intensive tar sands process, and therefore have a greater impact on the climate.

A fueled debate over exports

One of the arguments President Obama used against the pipeline was that it would not do anything to improve U.S. energy security. “Understand what this project is,” Obama said at a 14 November 2014 press conference. “It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.” It is true that Canadian crude, unlike most U.S.-produced oil, can be sent overseas. And, as CNN Money noted in a 2013 report, exports from the United States will likely rise because of the Keystone XL pipeline. There’s been a fierce debate over how much of that oil would stay in the U.S. and how much would be exported. And that debate is only going to heat up now that a new study, released in late February 2015 by the analysis firm IHS Inc., said that the majority of it would stay in the country. Specifically, the study said that 70 percent of the Canadian heavy oil would stay in the country after being refined, while the remaining would likely be exported. If true, that’s a burn for pipeline opponents who argue that most of the oil would be shipped oversees and wouldn’t contribute to U.S. energy security. But 30 percent of 830,000 barrels per day is not a small amount of oil to be exported, so it’s unlikely opponents will totally lay off the point that much of Keystone’s oil is for other countries. Indeed, the Senate rejected an amendment to the Keystone XL bill that would have required all the pipeline’s oil stay in the United States. The refineries that do process Keystone’s tar sands oil in the United States will also produce large amounts of petcoke - the black, dusty byproduct of tar sands oil refining - which will also likely be exported. Petcoke is coal-like and can be burned as a fuel in power plants, but is too dirty to be burned in America. Petcoke was the second-most exported product from the United States last year.

So, it has become a truism across Alberta as the seven-year (and counting!) wait for a Keystone pipeline continues.

In 2014 both Shell and France’s Total SA halted tar sands projects, saying they weren’t economically viable. Also, Suncor Energy of Canada and Total killed joint plans to build a massive bitumen upgrading plant in Alberta. “Market conditions have changed significantly,” Suncor's CEO said. The cancellation cost the companies more than $1.5 billion. And yes, the delays in building Keystone XL are playing a major role. When Statoil announced its postponed project, the company cited “limited pipeline access” as a factor.

“Tar sands extraction is a marginal business in the best of conditions,” says Swift. “As the financial risks stack up, companies are reconsidering throwing millions and millions of dollars at these projects." That’s good news for the environment. According to DeSmogBlog, the emissions difference between burning oil from conventional wells and tar sands is about the same as trading in your Honda Accord for a Chevy Suburban.

That would be a bad deal, but not quite as bad a deal as investing in tar sands. As long as the price of crude remains at $50 - $60 a barrel and the Keystone XL pipeline stays on the drawing board, much of that cheap and dirty crude will remain in the ground, right where Nature left it.

And where does that leave us with Vancouver real estate? Affected by the price of oil? Not affected by the price of oil? Who cares?!?]]>http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5306
Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:52:48 -0700http://vancouverpeak.com/showthread.php?tid=5306
The glaciers of western Canada are expected to drastically reduce in size in just three generations, according to a study that scientists warn underscores the real consequences of climate change. The glaciers of Alberta and British Columbia - deemed by many to be among the world’s most picturesque mountain ranges - are set to shrink by 75 percent in area by 2100, when compared to 2005 levels, and by 70 percent in volume, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience. But in two out of the three regions that were studied, the decline could be even more dramatic, with over 90 percent shrinkage predicted.

The loss will hit many sectors, from agriculture, forestry and tourism to ecosystems and water quality, the investigators warned. Garry Clarke, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and lead author of the study, said the disappearance of glaciers would be “a sad loss for those who are touched by the beauty of Canada's mountain landscapes." "When the glaciers have gone, we lose the important services they provide: a buffer against hot, dry spells in late summer that keeps headwater streams flowing and cool, and sustains cool-water aquatic species," he added.

The team used a computer model that combined four well-known scenarios for global warming this century with data about three glacier-covered regions and dynamics of ice melt. Even at the lowest projected warming, most of the glaciers are essentially doomed, according to their forecast. "Few glaciers will remain in the Interior and Rockies regions, but maritime glaciers, in particular those in northwestern British Columbia, will survive in a diminished state," the investigators said.

The study's four warming scenarios, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), are those used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Under RCP 2.6, the lowest scenario, global average temperatures over this century are likely to rise by 0.3-1.7 C (0.5-3.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Under RCP 8.5, the highest scenario, which is based on current trends in carbon emissions, warming would be in the approximate range of 2.6-4.8 C.

For the Interior and Rockies regions, glaciers would lose more than 90 percent of their volume and area compared to 2005 levels, in all scenarios except for RCP 2.6.

The Coast region, which is more resistant, would see 75 percent area loss and 70 percent volume loss, with a margin of error of 10 percent.

The study’s findings come amid controversy over Canada's response to the challenge of climate change. One of the country's main exports is petroleum, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced reluctance in the past to signing up to international agreements aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But without action, the negative effects of global warming could be stark.

By 2100, the IPCC says, mountain glacier melt could raise sea levels by 15 inches. "Glaciers respond to climate, not weather, and their shrinkage signals that climate change is real and its consequences are serious," said Clarke. "It is not too late for good behavior to be rewarded, but the longer we delay the worse things get."”

Source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/...o2407.html]]>
The glaciers of western Canada are expected to drastically reduce in size in just three generations, according to a study that scientists warn underscores the real consequences of climate change. The glaciers of Alberta and British Columbia - deemed by many to be among the world’s most picturesque mountain ranges - are set to shrink by 75 percent in area by 2100, when compared to 2005 levels, and by 70 percent in volume, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience. But in two out of the three regions that were studied, the decline could be even more dramatic, with over 90 percent shrinkage predicted.

The loss will hit many sectors, from agriculture, forestry and tourism to ecosystems and water quality, the investigators warned. Garry Clarke, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and lead author of the study, said the disappearance of glaciers would be “a sad loss for those who are touched by the beauty of Canada's mountain landscapes." "When the glaciers have gone, we lose the important services they provide: a buffer against hot, dry spells in late summer that keeps headwater streams flowing and cool, and sustains cool-water aquatic species," he added.

The team used a computer model that combined four well-known scenarios for global warming this century with data about three glacier-covered regions and dynamics of ice melt. Even at the lowest projected warming, most of the glaciers are essentially doomed, according to their forecast. "Few glaciers will remain in the Interior and Rockies regions, but maritime glaciers, in particular those in northwestern British Columbia, will survive in a diminished state," the investigators said.

The study's four warming scenarios, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), are those used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Under RCP 2.6, the lowest scenario, global average temperatures over this century are likely to rise by 0.3-1.7 C (0.5-3.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Under RCP 8.5, the highest scenario, which is based on current trends in carbon emissions, warming would be in the approximate range of 2.6-4.8 C.

For the Interior and Rockies regions, glaciers would lose more than 90 percent of their volume and area compared to 2005 levels, in all scenarios except for RCP 2.6.

The Coast region, which is more resistant, would see 75 percent area loss and 70 percent volume loss, with a margin of error of 10 percent.

The study’s findings come amid controversy over Canada's response to the challenge of climate change. One of the country's main exports is petroleum, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced reluctance in the past to signing up to international agreements aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But without action, the negative effects of global warming could be stark.

By 2100, the IPCC says, mountain glacier melt could raise sea levels by 15 inches. "Glaciers respond to climate, not weather, and their shrinkage signals that climate change is real and its consequences are serious," said Clarke. "It is not too late for good behavior to be rewarded, but the longer we delay the worse things get."”